I think where I would start is with the concept of the bilateral irritants that have been caused in relation to our inadmissibility provisions. We know that our provisions are broad. They were deliberately drafted to be very broad, and with a fine mesh net, so we could make sure people who were inadmissible on grounds of genocide, hate crimes, espionage, etc., couldn't slip through. But because of the membership provisions, largely, that has resulted in capturing people for whom some would say, “How on earth could that person be inadmissible?” Nelson Mandela, for example—how on earth could Nelson Mandela be inadmissible to Canada?
In the fall of 2010 Minister Kenney issued a new public policy that allowed us to have another facilitation measure for individuals such as Mr. Mandela, were he to apply. Yes, technically, he's inadmissible under the legislation, or someone like him, but because it's in Canada's national interest to be able to admit that person, under that public policy a temporary resident visa can be issued to an applicant, instead of what we used to use, which was a temporary resident permit. We knew that people were quite offended by getting a temporary resident permit before, so this has now facilitated admission to Canada. They get a regular document that looks like that of every other traveller, despite being technically inadmissible under our broad provisions.